Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner A1326
Side-by-side specs, profitability, and home mining comparison.
Specifications Comparison
| Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) | Specification | Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 |
|---|---|---|
| 16.0 TH/s | Taux de hachage | 115.0 TH/s |
| 1,280 W | Consommation électrique | 3,500 W |
| 80.0 J/TH | Efficiency | 30.4 J/TH |
| — | Niveau de bruit | 75 dB |
| 4,560.0 kg | Weight | 13.0 kg |
| 4,367 BTU/hr | BTU Output | 11,942 BTU/hr |
| 31/100 | Home Mining Score | 36/100 |
| — | Release Year | — |
| SHA-256 | Algorithme | SHA-256 |
| Bitmain | Manufacturer | Canaan |
Profitability Comparison
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th)
Canaan AvalonMiner A1326
Based on BTC price of $78,083 and current network difficulty as of May 16, 2026. Actual results vary.
Verdict
Run the numbers across every spec and the Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 edges it: 4 of 5 factors go its way (efficacité, hashrate, score de minage domestique, niveau sonore). Its biggest concrete edge: 619% more hashrate (16.0 vs 115.0 TH/s). The Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) claws back ground on consommation électrique. Review the detailed specs and profitability calculations above to determine which miner best fits your specific setup.
Spec Deltas
Stripped to the numbers, this is how far apart the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) and Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 sit on each measurable spec:
- Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 619% more hashrate (16.0 vs 115.0 TH/s)
- Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) 63% better power draw (1,280 vs 3,500 W)
- Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 62% better efficacité (80.0 vs 30.4 J/TH)
- Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 100% better weight (4,560.0 vs 13.0 kg)
- Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 173% more heat output (4,367 vs 11,942 BTU/hr)
- Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 16% more score de minage domestique (31.0 vs 36.0)
Cost & ROI Over Time
Hardware cost is only half the story — here is how each miner's upfront price plays out against cumulative profit at a $0.10/kWh rate.
| Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) | Metric | Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 |
|---|---|---|
| — | Upfront cost (MSRP) | $609 |
| -$2.50 | Daily net profit | -$4.27 |
| -$911 | Net after 1 year | -$2,167 |
| -$1,823 | Net after 2 years | -$3,724 |
| -$2,734 | Net after 3 years | -$5,282 |
| — | Payback period | Does not pay back at current rates (negative daily profit) |
Projections assume continuous operation, a flat $0.10/kWh rate, and no hardware degradation, pool fees, or BTC price change. Real-world ROI varies.
Best For...
Best for Profitability
TieBoth miners produce similar daily profit.
Best for Home Mining
Canaan AvalonMiner A1326Score: 36/100. 75 dB noise level.
Best for Efficiency
Canaan AvalonMiner A132630.4 J/TH — lower electricity cost per terahash.
Frequently Asked Questions
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner A1326: which one earns more per day?
At the current BTC price and a $0.10/kWh electricity rate, the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) is more profitable at $-2.50/day compared to $-4.27/day for the Canaan AvalonMiner A1326. Profitability depends heavily on your electricity rate — use the selector above to calculate with your actual costs.
Which is quieter, the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) or Canaan AvalonMiner A1326?
The Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 is quieter at 75 dB compared to the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) at 0 dB. For home mining, lower noise levels make a significant difference in livability.
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner A1326: which fits a residential setup better?
The Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 scores 36/100 on our Home Mining Score (vs 31/100 for the Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th)). This composite score factors in noise, power requirements, heat output, size, and setup ease — all critical for residential mining.
Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) vs Canaan AvalonMiner A1326: how much does the efficiency gap matter?
The Bitmain Antminer S9 SE (16Th) runs at 80.0 J/TH while the Canaan AvalonMiner A1326 runs at 30.4 J/TH — a difference of 49.6 J/TH. Lower efficiency means less electricity per terahash of mining power, directly reducing operating costs. In relative terms that is 62% better efficacité (80.0 vs 30.4 J/TH).